Your suggestion is interesting. Currently, all SM's are left at default (wide open). We rate-limit at the core with our BRAS. I didn't consider this being a limiting factor during times of contention.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > Or....reduce the sustained data rate configured on the low modulation > subscribers. > I believe the Canopy scheduler distributes capacity proportional to the > configured sustained rate when there's contention. So if you configure the > weaker connection for less speed, he should be allocated less air time. > > Sorry for so many separate posts. > > On 11/6/2015 2:30 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: > > Ripping and replacing a FSK with a 450 is generally not going to go well > unless you are absolutely certain your customers are going to modulate at > the highest rate. > > A better scenario if you can manage it is to hang the 450 alongside the FSK > and then only move the heavy customers with strong signals. > > On Nov 6, 2015 12:21 PM, "Eric Muehleisen" <ericm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Tyson, >> 1. We are using Cambium stock 65* dualslant antennas. >> 2. Mix of routers. We have a BYOR (bring your own router) policy. >> 3. All AP's are sync'd with either CMM4 or CTM2. >> >> Adam, >> We will certainly focus more attention on those SM's that have poor >> modulation. It wouldn't surprise me if the most active SM's are the >> ones stuck at 1x or 2x. >> >> George, >> We have not considered downgrading. Our entire network has been >> upgraded to 13.4. That over 500 SM's at this point. I'm a little >> nervous about downgrading. >> >> The reality here is that upgrading a FSK sector to 450 gets us only a >> little over double the capacity. FSK aggregates around 13mb/s and >> around 27mb/s aggregate for the 450. This is quite disappointing. It >> appears that we must now be very selective over what SM's can >> register. A nearly impossible task in our situation. Use caution if >> you plan on ripping and replacing your old FSK. You will not yield the >> kind of throughput you'd expect. >> >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Tyson Burris @ Internet >> Communications Inc <t...@franklinisp.net> wrote: >> > Eric, >> > >> > Thanks for bringing this up. We recently started deploying about 30 450 >> > AP's. Our testing in the field and with customers is producing the same >> > EXACT problem you just reported. >> > >> > More importantly, we see this problem on AP's with low SM's to high SM >> > ranges (5-45). Same firmware. >> > >> > Let's compare some notes: >> > >> > 1. What antennas are you using? >> > 2. What routers / OS are you using? >> > 3. What sync source are you using? >> > >> > We see high frame uses even on the AP's with low SM's and great >> > modulation rates. >> > I can understand if a large number of SM's have low modulation it will >> > eat up frames, but the outcome is the same on low and high SM counts. >> > >> > >> > >> > Tyson Burris, President >> > Internet Communications Inc. >> > 739 Commerce Dr. >> > Franklin, IN 46131 >> > >> > 317-738-0320 Daytime # >> > 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # >> > Online: www.surfici.net >> > >> > >> > What can ICI do for you? >> > >> > Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - >> > IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. >> > >> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the >> > addressee shown. It contains information that is >> > confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, >> > dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by >> > unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly >> > prohibited. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen >> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 12:51 PM >> > To: af@afmug.com >> > Subject: [AFMUG] 450 frame utilization and performance issues >> > >> > We have a few 450 AP's with 30-40 subscribers and have been getting >> > several slow speed complaints lately. I just chaulked it up to issues with >> > the SM since the AP rarely got over 20mb/s downlink. We upgraded to 13.4 >> > recently so we could watch our frame utilization. We started graphing it >> > over night and as you can see, we are hitting 100% for sustained periods of >> > time. During that time the AP is only doing approx. 23mb/s. This particular >> > AP has 34 registered SM and the majority show 6x and 4x with 4 or 5 SM's at >> > 2x and 1x. The performance is a major disappointment. Anyone else have >> > similar experiences? >> > >> > AP configuration: 20mhz channels, 2.5ms frame, 10 miles, 75% downlink, >> > 3 contention slots. >> > >> > Attached is a screenshot of the utilization and sector throughput >> > calculator from the Capacity Planner R13. >> > > >
